Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:19:40.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Group Citizenship Behaviour Conceptualization and Preliminary Tests of its Antecedents and Consequences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Xiao-Ping Chen ,
Simon S. K. Lam ,
Stefanie E. Naumann  and
John Schaubroeck
Simon S. K. Lam
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong, PRC
Stefanie E. Naumann
Affiliation:
University of the Pacific, USA
John Schaubroeck
Affiliation:
LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Group citizenship behaviour (GCB) is conceptualized as a distinct group-level phenomenon concerning the extent to which work groups engage in behaviours that support other work groups and the organization as a whole. These behaviours are different from task performance; they enhance and maintain the social and psychological environment in which task performance occurs. Based on the referent-shift consensus model (Chan, 1998), we developed a GCB scale and examined its nomological network. In a sample of 148 work groups in the Hong Kong office of a multinational bank (a total of 743 employees), between-group differences in GCB were greater than within-group differences. GCB was positively associated with procedural justice climate and work group leadership support. Work group cohesiveness and group-organizational goal congruence interactively predicted GCB, as did the negative affective tone of the group and the group's negative affectivity homogeneity. In addition, GCB was positively related to group performance, and negatively related to employee turnover intentions. The theoretical and empirical implications of this study are discussed in the context of Chinese organizations.

Type
Articles
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , July 2005 , pp. 273 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © International Association for Chinese Management Research 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelson, M. A. (1983). The impact of goal change on prominent perceptions and behaviors of employees’. Journal of Management, 9, 65–79.Google Scholar
Ancona, D. G. and Caldwell, D. F. (1990). ‘Information technology and work groups: The case of new product teams’. In Galegher, J. and Kraut, R. E. (Eds). Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work. Hillsdale, NJ, England (173–90).Google Scholar
Ancona, D. G. and Caldwell, D. F. (1992). ‘Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 4, 634–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, D. G., Bendoly, E. and Podsakoff, P. M. (2001). ‘Attributions of the “causes” of group performance as an alternative explanation of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and organizational performance’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1283–93.Google Scholar
Bachrach, D. G. and Jex, S. M. (2000). ‘Organizational citizenship and mood: An experimental test of perceived job breadth’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 641–63.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Barsade, S. G., Ward, A.J., Turner, J. D. F. and Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2000). ‘To your heart's content; A model of affective diversity in top management teams’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 802–36.Google Scholar
Berscheid, E. (1985). ‘Interpersonal attraction’. In Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, 2. New York: Random House (413–84).Google Scholar
Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). ‘A unified model of turnover from organizations’. Human-Relations, 35, 135–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H. and Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). ‘Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations’. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouas, K. S. and Komorita, S. S. (1996). ‘Group discussion and cooperation in social dilemmas’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1144–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brislin, R. W. (1980). ‘Translation and content analysis of oral and written material’. In Triandis, H. C. and Berry, J. W. (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 2. Boston: Allyn & Bacon (349–444).Google Scholar
Brockner, J. (2002). ‘Making sense of procedural fairness: How high procedural fairness can reduce or heighten the influence of outcome favorability’. Academy of Management Review, 27, 58–76.Google Scholar
Bryk, A. S. and Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Byrne, D., Clore, G. L. and Smeaton, G. (1986). ‘The attraction hypothesis: Do similar attitudes affect anything?’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1167–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G.J. and Higgs, A. C. (1993). ‘Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups’. Personnel Psychology, 46, 4, 823–50.Google Scholar
Chan, D. (1998). ‘Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–46.Google Scholar
Chan, K.-Y. and Drasgow, F. (2001). ‘Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 481–98.Google Scholar
Chen, X. P. (1996). ‘The group-based binding pledges as a solution to public goods problems’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 192–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X. P., Hui, C. and Sego, D. J. (1998). ‘The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 922–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y. R., Brockner, J. and Katz, T. (1998). ‘Towards an explanation of cultural differences in ingroup favoritism: The role of individual vs. collective primacy’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 6, 1490–1502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dansereau, F., Graen, G. and Haga, W. J. (1975). ‘A vertical dyad approach to leadership within formal organizations’. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, R. M., van de Kragt, A.J. and Orbell, J. M. (1990). ‘Cooperation for the benefit of us – Not me, or my conscience’. In Mansbridge, J. (Ed.), Beyond Self-interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dobbins, G. H. and Zaccaro, S. J. (1986). ‘The effects of group cohesion and leader behavior on subordinate satisfaction’. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 203–19.Google Scholar
Ehrhart, M. G. (2002). ‘Servant-leadership and justice climate: Antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior’. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, April.Google Scholar
Ehrhart, M. G., Thomas, J. T. and Bliese, P. (2003). ‘The incremental impact of unit-level OCB on unit effectiveness’. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL, April.Google Scholar
George, J. M. (1990). ‘Personality, affect, and behavior in groups’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, J. M. and Bettenhausen, K. (1990). ‘State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, J. M. and Brief, A. P. (1992). ‘Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship’. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310–29.Google Scholar
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership. New York: Paulist Press.Google Scholar
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J. and Shea, G. P. (1993). ‘Potency in groups: Articulating a construct’. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hackman, J. R. (1992). ‘Group influences on individuals in organizations’. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 199–267.Google Scholar
Hall, E. T. (1989). Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Heilman, M. E., Block, C.J. and Lucas, J. A. (1992). ‘Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 536–44.Google Scholar
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). ‘An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models’. Journal of Management, 23, 723–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hom, P. W. and Griffeth, R. W. (1991). ‘Structural equations modeling test of a turnover theory: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 350–66.Google Scholar
House, R.J. and Dessler, G. (1974). ‘The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post-hoc and a priori tests’. In Hunt, J. and Arson, L. (Eds). Contingency Approaches to Leadership. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
House, R. J., Rousseau, D. M. and Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). ‘The meso paradigm: A framework for the intergration of micro and macro organizational behavior’. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 71–114.Google Scholar
Hui, C. H. (1988). ‘Measurement of individualism-collectivism’. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 17–36.Google Scholar
Isen, A. M. and Baron, R. A. (1990). ‘Positive affect and organizational behavior’. In Staw, B. M. and Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 12. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
James, L. R. (1982). ‘Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 219–29.Google Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G. and Wolf, G. (1993). ‘rwg: An assessment of within group interrater agreement’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–9.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G. and Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago: Scientific Software International Inc.Google Scholar
Kandel, D. B. (1978). ‘Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship pairs’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 306–12.Google Scholar
Karambayya, R. (1990). ‘Contexual predictors of organizational citizenship behavior’. In Proceedings, Academy of Management Annual Meetings San Francisco, CA, (pp. 221–25).Google Scholar
Katerberg, R. and Hom, P. W. (1981). ‘Effects of within-group and between-group variations in leadership’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 218–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E. and Rosen, B. (2001). ‘Assessing the incremental validity of team consensus ratings over aggregation of individual-level data in predicting team effectiveness’. Personnel Psychology, 54, 645–65.Google Scholar
Klimoski, R. and Mohammed, S. (1994). ‘Team mental model: Construct or metaphor’? Journal of Management, 20, 403–37.Google Scholar
Koys, D. J. (2001). ‘The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study’. Personnel Psychology, 54, 101–14.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. M. and Brewer, M. B. (1984). ‘Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044–57.Google Scholar
Leung, K. and Bond, M. H. (1984). ‘The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 793–804.Google Scholar
Mobley, W. H. (1977). ‘Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 237–40.Google Scholar
Mohammed, S., Mathieu, J. E. and Barlett, A.L. (2002). ‘Technical-administrative task performance, leadership task performance, and contextual performance: Considering the influence of team- and task-related composition variables’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 795–814.Google Scholar
Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N. and Martin, C. L. (1998). ‘A multilevel analysis of procedural justice context’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 131–41.Google Scholar
Naumann, S. E. and Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model’. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 881–89.Google Scholar
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Organ, D. W. and Hamner, W. C. (1982). Organizational Behavior. Plano, TX: Business Publications.Google Scholar
Organ, D. W. and Ryan, K. (1995). ‘A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior’. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.Google Scholar
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M. and Xin, K. R. (1999). ‘Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M. and MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research’. Human Performance, 10, 133–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B. and Ahearne, M. (1997). ‘Moderating effects of goal acceptance on the relationship between group cohesiveness and productivity’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 974–83.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. and Fetter, R. (1990). ‘Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors’. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 2, 107–42.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. and Bachrach, D. G. (2000). ‘Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research’. Journal of Management, 26, 3, 513–63.Google Scholar
Porter, L. (1996). ‘Forty years of organization studies: Reflections from a micro perspective’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 2, 262–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salancik, G. R. and Pfeffer, J. (1978). ‘A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–52.Google Scholar
Schnake, M. E. and Dumler, M. P. (2003). Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational citizenship behavior research’. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 283–301.Google Scholar
Schwab, D. P. (1980). ‘Construct validity in organizational behavior’. In Cummings, L. L. and Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 2. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E. and Popper, M. (1998). ‘Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387–409.Google Scholar
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior, 3rd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Singelis, T., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. and Gelfand, M. (1995). ‘Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement’. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240–75.Google Scholar
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. and Near, J. P. (1983). ‘Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–63.Google Scholar
Stone-Romero, E. (1994). ‘Construct validity issues in organizational behavior research’. In Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (pp. 155–77).Google Scholar
Tellegen, A. (1982). ‘Brief manual for the differential personality questionnaire’. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Tellegen, A. (1985). ‘Structure of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report’. In Tuma, A. H. and Maser, J. D. (Eds.), Anxiety and the Anxiety Disorders. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (681–706).Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C. and Hui, C. H. (1990). ‘Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006–20.Google Scholar
Veechio, R. P. (1982). ‘A further test of leadership effects due to between-group variation and within-group variation’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 200–208.Google Scholar
Watson, D., Clark, L. A. and Teilegen, A. (1988). ‘Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The Panas scales’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–70.Google Scholar
Wegner, D. M. (1986). ‘Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind’. In Mullen, B. and Goethals, G. R. (Eds), Theories of Group Behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag (pp. 18–208).Google Scholar
Williams, K. Y. and O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). ‘Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research’. In Staw, B. M. (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations (5th edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar